The exchange on Capitol Hill offered a rare moment where bureaucratic language gave way to blunt claims about the scale of alleged fraud—and the numbers involved were striking.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., appearing before the House Ways and Means Committee, described what he characterized as a sweeping crackdown on fraudulent hospice operations centered in Los Angeles.
When pressed by Rep. Beth Van Duyne about a single address in Van Nuys—14545 Friar Street—Kennedy was told that more than 100 hospice licenses had reportedly been registered there. The implication was clear: a single location serving as the paper headquarters for a sprawling network of questionable providers.
Kennedy outlined what he said was already underway. According to his testimony, hundreds of hospice operations in the Los Angeles area have been shut down or had funding suspended following the formation of a federal anti-fraud task force led by Vice President J.D. Vance. That task force, which first convened in late March, has targeted nearly 450 hospices suspected of fraudulent activity.
The alleged scheme, as described during the hearing, follows a pattern that departs sharply from legitimate end-of-life care. Kennedy claimed that individuals were recruited—sometimes in low-income neighborhoods—with cash payments or consumer goods in exchange for enrollment in hospice programs.
Once enrolled, providers would bill the government thousands of dollars per patient. In many cases, he said, those patients were not terminally ill and remained on hospice rolls far beyond the typical average stay of about 18 days.
What stood out in his remarks was the assertion that many of these hospice entities existed largely on paper. Addresses were described as “invented,” with little or no physical presence, while billing activity continued. Kennedy estimated the total cost of the alleged fraud in Los Angeles alone could reach $5 billion.
The hearing also touched on broader concerns about systemic vulnerabilities in federal benefit programs. References were made to past reporting and whistleblower claims in other states, suggesting that similar patterns—though not identical in structure—may be under scrutiny elsewhere. However, those claims remain separate and vary widely in verification and scope.
Even within the Los Angeles case, key details remain tied to ongoing enforcement actions and investigations. The scale described by federal officials is significant, but it is also based largely on preliminary findings and administrative actions such as funding suspensions and license reviews, rather than completed prosecutions.
